Choose My Lenses For Me « Nikon Rumors Forum

The new Nikon Rumors Forum is now live at http://forum.nikonrumors.com/discussions. This forum is now in "read only" mode until I figure a proper way to import all data over to the new platform. Please register over at the new forum.


Nikon Rumors Forum

where there’s smoke there’s forum fire

Register or log in - lost password?

Nikon Rumors Forum » Nikon DSLR

Choose My Lenses For Me

(15 posts) (10 voices)
  • Started 2 years ago by Henry
  • Latest reply from Drab
  • Related Topics:
    1. Nikon D7000 books recommendations
    2. Nikon D7000 (Versus D50)
    3. Nikkor 18-200mm 3.5-5.6 Won't Autofocus
    4. New to world of photography- need advice on picking up a long term dslr Help!!!
    5. Nikon D5100 Focus Blur Closeup Problem

Tags:

No tags yet.

  1. Henry

    new member
    Joined: Nov '10
    Posts: 3

    offline

    I shoot a Nikon D300 with the first version of the Nikon 18-200mm DX lens.
    My wife shoots a Nikon D5000 with a Nikon 18-70mm DX lens.

    We share the following:
    Nikon 35mm DX
    Nikon 10-24mm DX
    Nikon 70-300mm FX

    1. What do the experts think we should add if anything?
    2. What do the experts think we should not have?
    3. Does it make sense to sell the 70-300mm FX lens and replace it with the 55-300mm DX lens for better range?
    4. Does it make sense to sell any portion of the lenses that we have and replace them with the 28-300mm FX lens for the D300 body and use the 18-200mm DX lens for the D5000 body?

    There are a lot of choices out there and it can be confusing.

    Thanks for any advice that there may be out there.

    Posted 2 years ago #
  2. Krevlin

    preferred member
    Joined: Jun '10
    Posts: 316

    offline

    Your lens line up are perfectly fine.

    The only thing you might want to get is faster glass.

    Posted 2 years ago #
  3. tcole1983

    preferred member
    Joined: Feb '10
    Posts: 1,553

    offline

    You didn't really say what you shoot or why you would need anything else. Have you been noticing you are looking for something else? Maybe a couple more fast primes or a macro lens?

    Posted 2 years ago #
  4. warprints

    preferred member
    Joined: Mar '09
    Posts: 769

    offline

    Henry, as the other posters indicate, without knowing what you shoot or intend to shoot, I have no way of knowing whether you need a super tele lens, an ultra wide, a PC lens, or you just want better glass. Help us out so we can give you some advice.

    Posted 2 years ago #
  5. stanlm

    member
    Joined: Jul '10
    Posts: 40

    offline

    or describe the last situation you took a shot that didn't come out well. (if nothing comes to mind, perhaps you have everything you need!).

    Posted 2 years ago #
  6. Henry

    new member
    Joined: Nov '10
    Posts: 3

    offline

    Mainly my wife and I use our cameras as walking around cameras, but I do use my camera to take alot of interior architectural shots.

    When my wife and I are on vacation she is tired of me bringing our bag with a lot of equipment. This is one of the reasons for considering condensing into fewer lenses with more versatility.

    Posted 2 years ago #
  7. NSXType-R

    preferred member
    Joined: Mar '09
    Posts: 2,803

    offline

    Having that 10-24 would do well for a lot of your shots then.

    Maybe get a 10.5mm fisheye?

    Posted 2 years ago #
  8. shivaswrath

    preferred member
    Joined: Mar '09
    Posts: 841

    offline

    you've got a great group of pretty versatile lenses, would recommend staying put. .

    Posted 2 years ago #
  9. Drab

    preferred member
    Joined: Aug '10
    Posts: 540

    offline

    The only two things I see you lacking are more fast lenses (if you so desire) and a more modern "main lens" for the wife. The 18-70 is competent, but lacks VR and is not the sharpest thing in the world.

    I would not trade the 70-300 VR in for the 55-300 VR. The extra 15mm on the low end are well covered elsewhere, and not terribly exciting. About the only thing you'd gain is a modest weight savings, as the 70-300 is an excellent lens, and most its weaknesses are not present when used on DX.

    As much as I hate to say it, if you are at all tempted to go with a PC-E lens, seriously consider switching to Canon. Their tilt shift solutions trample all over Nikon's, and are cheaper to boot. Nikon is finally addressing Canon's list of f/4 lenses, but has yet to show any serious interest in fixing the failings of their tilt OR shift collection.

    Posted 2 years ago #
  10. gelu88

    preferred member
    Joined: Feb '10
    Posts: 295

    offline

    Perhaps replace the 18-70 with a 18-105 or a 16-85?

    if carrying to much stuff during a trip is the problem, a lens with a wider range is the best solution.

    And the 18-105 is very cheap these days, but you already have one 18-200 so i dont know if you need even that.

    Basically you have reached a point where you can do everything competently, any more purchases involve specializing in a certain area, and all choices come with their own drawbacks.

    Posted 2 years ago #
  11. TaoTeJared

    preferred member
    Joined: Apr '10
    Posts: 2,422

    offline

    You have almost everything covered.

    If I'm reading it right you have the Nikon 70-300mm FX NON VR? I would upgrade to the VR for sure. I wouldn't get the 55-300 - not worth it when you can have FX glass that will last you for years.

    Really the only two things you are somewhat lacking in is a Macro like the 85mm and a portrait lens like the 50mm AFS.

    Posted 2 years ago #
  12. Drab

    preferred member
    Joined: Aug '10
    Posts: 540

    offline

    Good catch, TaoTeJared, I misread.
    You're missing is a really competent tele zoom.
    Drop that 70-300 and get either the VR model or the 55-300. As I said above, I'd get the 70-300 VR any day, any way over the 55-300. That one just doesn't interest me.

    If you want to save cash, sell the 70-300 G for $100 and buy a used 55-200 VR for not much more. What you lose is where the 70-300 is really weak, and what you gain is smaller size, standard 52mm filters, VR, lighter weight, sharper image.

    One could argue this is covered by the 18-200, and in a way it is...

    Posted 2 years ago #
  13. tcole1983

    preferred member
    Joined: Feb '10
    Posts: 1,553

    offline

    Now that I see a little more what you want your option 4 seems like a pretty good option for walk around stuff. If you carried the 10-24 with you and then the camera and the 28-300 and other camera with 18-200 that would cover lots of situations. That is if you are looking for the least lens situation. And as some of the others said, but if you are going to get the VR 70-300 instead of the non-VR version you might as well get the 28-300.

    Posted 2 years ago #
  14. Henry

    new member
    Joined: Nov '10
    Posts: 3

    offline

    Thanks to all for their advice. I am still debating with my wife, she wants us to have one lens for each camera and wants me to leave the bag at home.

    Posted 2 years ago #
  15. Drab

    preferred member
    Joined: Aug '10
    Posts: 540

    offline

    Henry said:
    I am still debating with my wife, she wants us to have one lens for each camera and wants me to leave the bag at home.

    That makes it easy.
    Sell her D5000 and 18-70. With that money buy her a Canon S95 and a nice dinner.
    ;)

    Posted 2 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.

NikonRumors Forum (http://nikonrumors.com/forum) is proudly powered by bbPress
Disclaimer: This site has no affiliation with Nikon USA or any other subsidiary of Nikon. Please visit the official Nikon website at nikon.com
Copyright © 2008-2011 NikonRumors.com